[Chris] That's not what I'm saying here. I'm pointing out that when diagnosing insanity it brings us to the core of the S/O split, resting on a knifes edge
of it. Diagnoses are made not on knowledge that there is something wrong with people physically, but rather the assumption that there MUST be, since we have the whole idealism vs. materialism thing going on. [Krimel] When a man refuses food or drink, does not respond to loved ones, allows cigarettes to burn into his flesh and is incontinent what would you suggest? How much debate is required to determine that something is wrong? When a child throws constant temper tantrums flies into berserker rages and breaks everything they can move; you think a Chautauqua is in order? When a person repeatedly attempts suicide, your solution is to question our assumptions? When a person can not hold a job because they spend six hours a day washing their hands; you think they are just being idealistic about cleanliness? [Chris] BUT THEN. Even if someone say's that it's a combination effect that creates madness, well, I have still not heard a single good explanation as to what a thought actually is - and how thought patterns that no one knows where, how or if they exist - can effect the tissue of the brain - if it has to??? [Krimel] The situations I noted above are purely rooted in what people do. Their thoughts are of marginal importance with respect to whether we judge them to be ill or not. But patterns of thought are indeed used to determine mental illness. When people report seeing and hearing thing others can't see or hear for example or when they say they great forces are conspiring against them or that they are themselves the incarnation of historical figures. You recommend that their family members and loved ones do what? Call a metaphysician? [Chris] Look, illness is a human concept, and doesn't exist in nature, and when you say that: [Krimel] Colds and flu and cancer and typhoid don't exist in nature? Please. [Chris] I'd say that yes, we would assume so. And these people can, as you say, not be treated with philosophy as such - but bare with me here: it is a malfunctioning philosophy as the basis of science that makes it so much harder to treat these people, and that gives a huge amount of other side affects, so - with the basis of another philosophy that first and foremost could in a satisfying way define what madness actually IS, and then on that basis help develop the methods used to treat this Low Quality state. [Krimel] As I said I am no fan of the DSM but what is it if not an attempt to "...define what madness actually IS, and then on that basis help develop the methods used to treat this Low Quality state." At least it is an attempt made by people who study and treat the mentally ill. It is an attempt at professional communication and standardization of terminology and meaning. It may not be perfect, certainly there is professional scrutiny and criticism as well, but at least it comes from people who know what they are talking about and who they are dealing with. What is your criticism based upon? "...it is a malfunctioning philosophy as the basis of science that makes it so much harder to treat these people." What are you talking about? Through out history the mentally ill have been locked up and isolated, treated with amusement and contempt, treated with compassion and love. They have been tortured and executed, electrocuted, drown, drugged, operated upon and had demons cast out of them. The fact is mental illnesses are hard to treat and hard to live with and they always have been. The situation today is not good but it is vastly better than it was even fifty years ago. It is not philosophy that made a difference. It was medicine. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
